Heavy Flamers was "Re: [SG] WotW"

Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> Because flamers are short range weapons? Remember, 1" = 10 metres
range?

Yes but vehicle mounted flame weapons can have a huge range depending on
how much pressure they use on the fuel. I don't see 100m range as all
too far.

> Err. Max range 140 metres? Width at max range 20 metres? And you call
this
> light?

Ok so lets try something alittle smaller. As I said this is all just
stuff thrown out.

Light Flamer:
Size: 4
Range: 12"
Width at max range: 2"
Damage: D8

Heavy Flamer:
Size: 6
Range: 14"
Width at max range: 3"
Damage: D8

Now remember you can "walk" the stream of fire which gives you the width
at range.

Now as a thought, how about decreasing damage with range?

Now a flame weapon should do more damage then terrain fires since it is
designed to be a weapon and a concentrated stream of fire. 

The roll for catching on fire probably is too much so dump that. Though
you should still roll to see if the terrain catches on fire at the point
you're aiming at.

And I still think it should cause terror. 

Thus we get:

Light Flamer:
Size: 4
Range Bands: 4"
Max Range: 12"
Width at max range: 2"
Damage: D10/D8/D6

Heavy Flamer:
Size: 6
Range Bands: 5"
Max Range: 15"
Width at max range: 3"
Damage: D10/D8/D6

*Causes terror
*May light terrain on fire (including vehicles)

> I'm sorry, but these simply strike me as far too heavy. I _could_ be
wrong
> about the ranges of realistic flame weapons, but this strikes me as
> excessive.

Not really. Think on how far you can shoot a fire hose. Same principle
applies here.
 
> I'm sorry, but I think this would be too heavy, as suggested? I'd
rather
> be taking heavy orbital bombardment than this ;)

I don't know, worst can happen there is you get blown apart, ever
thought what it's like to slow roast?